oregon judicial department - oregon state...

OREGON JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REPORT

JANUARY 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION STATEMENT i I. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REPORT ..............................................................1

A. Purpose ..............................................................................................1 B. Policy ..................................................................................................1

II. ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS ...........................................................1

A. Overview ............................................................................................1 B. Appellate and Tax Courts ...................................................................2 C. Office of the State Court Administrator...............................................2 D. Circuit Courts ......................................................................................2

III. OREGON’S JUDICIAL DISTRICTS ............................................................3 IV. EEO/AA RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES ..............................................4

A. Chief Justice and State Court Administrator ......................................4 B. Human Resource Services Director ...................................................4 C. Administrative Authorities ...................................................................5 D. Managers and Supervisors ................................................................5 E. Employees Who Regularly Represent the Department to External

Organizations .....................................................................................5 V. UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ............................................................................6 VI. DATA DURING PERIOD OF REPORT .......................................................8 VII. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ........................................................................ 11 VIII. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT NEW AND ONGOING INITIATIVES ............. 15 IX. 2015-2017 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION GOALS AND STRATEGIES .......... 17

APPENDIX

Workforce Analysis by EEO Category – Departmentwide ........................ 19

Utilization Analysis by Gender, Race and Disability - Statewide Summary: All Categories ........................................................................... 20

Utilization Analysis by Gender, Race and Disability - Statewide Summary: Officials and Administrators Category ..................................... 21

Utilization Analysis by Gender, Race and Disability - Statewide Summary: Professionals Category ............................................................ 22

Utilization Analysis by Gender, Race and Disability - Statewide Summary: Technicians Category .............................................................. 23 Utilization Analysis by Gender, Race and Disability - Salem PMSA (Marion and Polk): Service and Maintenance Category ............... 24 Utilization Analysis by Gender, Race and Disability – County Summary: Administrative Support Category ............................................ 25

Utilization Analysis by Gender, Race and Disability - Salem PMSA (Marion and Polk), OSCA and Appellate Courts only: Administrative Support Category ............................................................... 53

Utilization Analysis by Gender, Race and Disability - Individual County Summaries: Administrative Support Category ...................... 27 – 62

1

I. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REPORT

A. Purpose

This Affirmative Action Report was developed to assure that the Oregon Judicial Department (OJD) is providing equal employment opportunities.

B. Policy

OJD’s rule on Equal Employment Opportunity is set forth in the Judicial Department Personnel Rules as follows:

Rule 5, Equal Employment Opportunity

OJD provides equal employment opportunities to all employees and applicants for employment without unlawful regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, political affiliation, age, marital status, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, veteran status, or employment, including but not limited to, recruitment, hiring, training, promotion, transfer, and administration of all personnel policies, procedures, practices, programs, and services.

Administrative authorities are required to assure that equal employment opportunity provisions are applied to all employment practices. (Also see the OJD Policy Statement on Unlawful Discrimination and Harassment.)

II. ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS

A. Overview

OJD was created in Article III, Section 1, of the Oregon Constitution. The Chief Justice is responsible for the administration of the judicial branch of government and is designated as the administrative head of OJD which includes the appellate, tax, and circuit courts. It is the Chief Justice’s responsibility to promulgate a personnel plan for all officers and employees of the courts governing appointment, compensation, promotion, discipline, and all other aspects of employment. The Chief Justice is also charged with the duty of supervising a statewide plan for budgeting, accounting, and fiscal management of OJD. The department has 1,590 employees as of September 30, 2014. Judges are elected officials and not employees and, as such, not subject to the report. There are a total of 194 judges in the Oregon appellate, tax, and circuit courts.

2

B. Appellate and Tax Courts

The Supreme Court consists of seven justices and is the court of last appellate resort in the state court system. The Court of Appeals consists of thirteen judges who hear appeals from circuit courts, agencies, and boards. One Tax Court judge hears matters arising from Oregon tax law. The Tax Magistrate Division includes three tax magistrates, appointed by the Tax Judge, who oversee less formal tax appeal proceedings.

C. Office of the State Court Administrator

ORS Chapter 8 (primarily) establishes and defines the duties of the Office of the State Court Administrator. The State Court Administrator serves under the direction of the Chief Justice. The State Court Administrator is generally responsible for certain centralized functions of the unified Oregon State court system including legal counsel, internal audit, judicial and staff education, enterprise technology systems, budget and financial administration, court statistics and program support, human resource management, and intergovernmental relations. Administration of the Citizens Review Board Program, Court Interpreter Services Program, State of Oregon Law Library, and Appellate Court Records Section are also funded and managed within the office.

D. Circuit Courts

The circuit courts are general jurisdiction trial courts located in each of the 36 counties, organized as 27 judicial districts, and served by 173 judges (as of September 30, 2014). These courts adjudicate matters and disputes in criminal, civil, domestic relations, traffic, juvenile, small claims, violations, abuse prevention, probate, civil commitment, adoption, and guardianship cases.

Pursuant to ORS 1.003, the Chief Justice appointed 27 judges to serve as presiding judge in each district for administrative purposes. Their general authority is described in ORS 1.171. The nonjudicial operations of the circuit courts are managed by 27 trial court administrators who are appointed and supervised by the presiding judges. Their general authority is described in ORS 8.225. Their duties include personnel administration, budget and financial management, court operations, and jury management.

3

III. OREGON’S JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

There are 27 judicial districts with a circuit court in each county.

1st Judicial District Jackson County 2nd Judicial District Lane County 3rd Judicial District Marion County 4th Judicial District Multnomah County 5th Judicial District Clackamas County 6th Judicial District Morrow and Umatilla Counties 7th Judicial District Gilliam, Hood River, Sherman,

Wasco, and Wheeler Counties 8th Judicial District Baker County 9th Judicial District Malheur County 10th Judicial District Union and Wallowa Counties 11th Judicial District Deschutes County 12th Judicial District Polk County 13th Judicial District Klamath County

14th Judicial District Josephine County 15th Judicial District Coos and Curry Counties 16th Judicial District Douglas County 17th Judicial District Lincoln County 18th Judicial District Clatsop County 19th Judicial District Columbia County 20th Judicial District Washington County 21st Judicial District Benton County 22nd Judicial District Crook and Jefferson Counties 23rd Judicial District Linn County 24th Judicial District Grant and Harney Counties 25th Judicial District Yamhill County 26th Judicial District Lake County 27th Judicial District Tillamook County

4

IV. EEO/AA RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES

A. Chief Justice and State Court Administrator

The Chief Justice committed OJD to a policy of equal employment opportunity. The Chief Justice has delegated the overall administrative responsibility for ensuring equal employment opportunity to the State Court Administrator through the OJD Personnel Rules.

B. Human Resource Services Director

The Human Resource Services Director, as directed by the State Court Administrator, has day-to-day responsibility for the implementation of the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Plan. Such responsibility includes:

1. Developing and monitoring the department’s written EEO Plan. The plan is periodically updated as deemed appropriate by the Human Resource Services Director.

2. Disseminating the plan internally.

3. Assisting trial court administrators, managers, and supervisors as necessary.

4. Providing employee counseling related to informal discrimination complaints.

5. Auditing and insuring that all OJD policies are in compliance with equal opportunity (and affirmative action) laws and regulations.

6. Serving as liaison between the department and enforcement agencies.

7. Identifying the need for and developing EEO management and supervisory training programs.

8. Assisting hiring authorities in broad dissemination of recruitment announcements in order to attract diverse applicant pools.

5

C. Administrative Authorities

Within their respective jurisdictions, administrative authorities are responsible for:

1. Establishing a positive climate for equal employment.

2. Evaluating subordinate managers and supervisors on the basis of their EEO practices.

3. Assuring that all personnel practices and procedures, including training, hiring, and promoting, are applied equally and in compliance with OJD Personnel Rule 5.

4. Communicating the availability of the department’s Affirmative Action Report to each judge and each manager and supervisor.

5. Reviewing diversity goals and employing outreach strategies to achieve such goals.

D. Managers and Supervisors

The following responsibilities are assigned to managers and supervisors as it relates to employees under their supervision:

1. Establishing a positive climate for equal employment.

2. Assuring that all personnel practices and procedures, including training, hiring, and promotion, are applied equally and in compliance with OJD Personnel Rule 5.

3. Taking necessary action(s) to prevent discrimination and/or harassment.

4. Reviewing diversity goals and employing outreach strategies to achieve such goals.

E. Employees Who Regularly Represent the Department to External Organizations

Employees who regularly present information to external organizations should, when feasible, make a statement that affirms OJD’s commitment to workforce diversity and that employment applications are welcome from all qualified persons.

6

V. UTILIZATION ANALYSIS

The goal of OJD is to have an employee workforce which reflects the Oregon labor force in terms of the representation of women, people of color, and persons with disabilities. To determine how close OJD is to this goal, the following steps were taken:

A. The Oregon labor force was identified in the “EEO Tabulation 2006-2010 (5-year ACS data)” provided through “American FactFinder” and published by the U.S. Census Bureau. This report outlines EEO residence data for each occupational category by race and ethnicity.

B. The Oregon labor force was summarized by EEO job categories (as defined by current EEOC guidelines).

C. OJD workforce was summarized by county and by EEO-4 job categories based on the workforce as of September 30, 2014.

D. A form requesting information on race/ethnicity and disability status is provided to new employees.

E. OJD workforce was compared with the Oregon labor force.

County labor force data was used to evaluate the EEO job categories of Administrative Support and Service and Maintenance. The Administrative Support job category equals 71 percent of the OJD workforce. Most persons who apply for jobs in these two job categories reside within the county where the jobs are located.

Statewide labor force data was used to evaluate the remaining EEO job categories of Officials and Administrators, Professionals, and Technicians. These jobs tend to attract applicants from all areas of the state as well as outside the state. In addition, they represent such a small number of positions per circuit court that a countywide utilization analysis would be irrelevant.

The analysis of OJD’s workforce included individual racial/ethnic groups and also a combined total of all racial/ethnic groups. The analysis further separates the racial/ethnic groups and job categories by gender.

The analysis also included a report of the department’s (self-reported) disabled workforce compared to the disabled workforce identified in the “2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates” report provided through the “American FactFinder” and published by the U.S. Census Bureau.

7

Note: This report is not separated by occupational category therefore the data is less exact. Additionally, the data source previously used as a basis for analysis had not been updated since October 2004. To obtain a current data source, projected to be available more often, the data source for the disabled workforce was changed to the 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates report. Some portion of the decrease in underutilization (from 2% to 1.5%) may be related to the data source change as well as the 2010 U.S. Census data implemented this reporting period.

A designation was added to this Affirmative Action Report (as of 2003) to provide employees the option of choosing “multi-racial/ethnic” (now titled “two or more races”) as their primary designation. (Employees so electing were also asked to select from among the state of Oregon’s recognized racial/ethnic categories for reporting purposes.) A work force analysis report in the Appendix reflects this information. The percentage of employees designating “two or more races” decreased from the previous report period (4.2 percent) to 3.3 percent. During the 2009 report period, OJD revised the racial/ethnic categories as directed by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. The revision (from five racial/ethnic categories to seven) brings OJD into compliance with the reporting requirements for obtaining federal grant monies. As a result, a new census survey was conducted and a database was developed to store and analyze the information. In addition to reporting to the U.S. Department of Justice, OJD is using the revised categories to report to the Oregon Legislature. Note: The State of Oregon still uses the five racial/ethnic categories as required to report to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The OJD reports this information to the Executive Branch using a “cross-walk” matrix.

8

VI. DATA DURING PERIOD OF REPORT

A comparison of OJD’s Affirmative Action Report data since 2001 indicates that since the 2007 report period the department has

Maintained parity for women in all job categories, although improvement is still needed in one category.

Increased the percentage of representation for people of color, although improvement is still needed in three of five categories.

Improved the overall total of underutilization by FTE for persons with disabilities, although improvement is still needed in four of five categories.

Below is a summary of the findings. The following two pages provide specific numerical information as well as a comparison to previous years.

FTE UTILIZATION SUMMARY:

People Persons with Women of Color Disabilities Officials/Administrators Utilized Utilized Underutilized

Professionals Utilized Underutilized Underutilized

Technicians Underutilized Underutilized Underutilized

Administrative Support Utilized Underutilized Underutilized

Service/Maintenance Utilized Utilized Utilized

Note: Changes in the above utilization (from prior reports) are impacted each time new demographic data is incorporated into the census report. Over the past years, the demographic data shifted in Oregon with the exception of the period September 30, 2008 to September 30, 2010, where there was no change in utilization in any of the categories.

9

YEARLY COMPARISON OF “UNDERUTILIZATION”

This two-page table shows the number of positions currently “underutilized” in each job category compared to the past reports.

Job Categories

2005 2007 2009

No. EEs

Underutilization

No. EEs

Underutilization

No. EEs

Underutilization

Female

People of

Color Disabled

People of

Color Disabled Female

People of

Color Disabled

FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE

Officials & Admin. 46 0 1 3 53 0 2 4 51 0 0 2

Professionals 284 0 0 20 309 0 0 24 333 0 0 21

Technicians 54 10 1 4 55 8 1 4 52 8 2 3

Administrative Support 1232 0 4 82 1247 0 12 82 1305 0 0 77

Service/Maintenance 4 1 0 0 4 0 2 0 2 0 0 0

Overall Dept. Totals 1620 11 6 109 1668 8 17 114 1743 8 2 103

Note: This update of the AA Report reflects a decrease in underutilization of persons with disabilities. (This is the "numerator" of availability.) The availability data imported from the "2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates" this reporting period provided an update from 2004 Oregon Employment Department data. (This is the "denominator" of availability.) Some portion of the difference between the 2013 and 2015 reports for the disabled workforce may be related to the change in data source as well as implementation of the 2010 U.S. Census data.

9

10

YEARLY COMPARISON OF “UNDERUTILIZATION” (continued)

Job Categories

2011 2013 20151

No. EEs

Underutilization

No. EEs

Underutilization

No. EEs

Underutilization

Female

People of


People of


People of

Color Disabled

FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE

Officials & Admin. 51 0 0 2 47 0 2 3 57 0 0 2

Professionals 327 0 0 20 316 0 0 22 364 0 5 15

Technicians 48 8 2 3 39 8 1 2 38 9 2 1

Administrative Support 1183 0 7 77 1049 0 5 67 1130 0 14 55

Service/Maintenance 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Overall Dept. Totals 1611 8 9 102 1453 8 8 94 1590 9 21 73

1See Appendix pages 19-62 for data underlying these numbers.

Note: This update of the AA Report reflects a decrease in underutilization of persons with disabilities. (This is the "numerator" of availability.) The availability data imported from the "2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates" this reporting period provided an update from 2004 Oregon Employment Department data. (This is the "denominator" of availability.) Some portion of the difference between the 2013 and 2015 reports for the disabled workforce may be related to the change in data source as well as implementation of the 2010 U.S. Census data.

10

11

VII. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

As of September 2014, OJD met or exceeded parity for women in four of the five job categories. The job category with underutilization of women is Technicians. The department’s goal is to improve representation in this job category.

Regarding people of color, the department met or exceeded parity in two of the five job categories. Parity for the Officials and Administrators job category was reached this reporting period. Parity was maintained since the 2009 report in the Service and Maintenance job category. The department’s goal is to improve representation in the Professionals, Technicians, and Administrative Support job categories.

In the Service and Maintenance job category, there is no underutilization when comparing to the county data because of the number of positions (one position). As positions become vacant, the department will strive to recruit a more diverse workforce in this job category.

During this report period, employees with disabilities comprise 1.5 percent of OJD workforce, a continued decrease from 2.7 percent reported in 2009, 2.48 percent reported in 2011, and 2.0 percent reported in 2013. Although the data on the disabled workforce is not separated by occupational category, the department’s goal is to continue to improve representation in this area in four of five categories and work toward the 9.5 percent statewide goal.

A summary of each EEO category listed below provides a brief review and findings. A detailed breakdown of each EEO category can be found in the Appendix.

EEO Category: Officials and Administrators

Occupations in which employees set broad policies; exercise overall responsibility for execution of these policies; direct individual departments or special phases of the court’s or division’s operations; or provide specialized consultation on a regional, district, or area basis. Classifications include:

Manager 1, 2, 3 OSCA Division and Deputy Directors Oregon eCourt Program Director State Court Administrator Trial Court Administrator 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

12

OJD has 57 employees in this category of work. There are 38 females, 6 people of color, and 1 person with disabilities in this category. The statewide labor force availability for this group indicates that a goal should be established to hire two persons with disabilities in this category.

EEO Category: Professionals

Occupations that require specialized and theoretical knowledge that is usually acquired through college training or through work experience and other training that provides comparable knowledge. Classifications include:

Accountant 1, 2 Information Technology Manager Analyst 2, 3, 4 Information Technology

Specialist 3, 4 Appellate Commissioner Information Technology Supervisor Appellate Legal Counsel Internal Auditor 1, 2 Appellate Legal Counsel, Assistant Interpreter 1, 2 Appellate Settlement Program Manager

Interpreter/Translator

Appellate Staff Attorney Judicial Clerk Benefits Manager Law Clerk CRB Coordinator 1, 2 Law Librarian Electronic Services Librarian Legal Counsel, Assistant Fiscal Analyst 2, 3 Librarian Hearings Referee Procurement Officer 1, 2 Human Resource Manager Program Coordinator 2, 3, 4 Tax Magistrate OJD currently has 364 employees in this category of work. There are 216 females, 44 people of color, and 9 persons with disabilities in this category. The statewide labor force availability for this group indicates that a goal should be established to hire 5 people of color and 15 persons with disabilities in this category.

EEO Category: Technicians

Occupations in which workers are responsible for technical applications. Classifications include:

Assistant Editor—Composer Information Technology Specialist 1, 2

13

OJD currently has 38 employees in this category of work. There are 10 females, 3 people of color, and 1 person with disabilities in this category. The statewide labor force availability for this group indicates that a goal should be established to hire nine females, two people of color and one person with disabilities in this category.

EEO Category: Administrative Support (including Office/Clerical)

Occupations in which workers are responsible for internal and external communication, recording and retrieval of data and/or information, and other paperwork required in an office. Classifications include:

Analyst 1 Management Assistant 1, 2 Budget and Finance Specialist 1, 2 Paralegal Collections Agent Payroll/Benefits Technician 1, 2 Court Reporter, Stenographic Program Coordinator 1 Fiscal Analyst 1 Release Assistance Officer Judicial Services Specialist 1, 2, 3, 4 Supervisor 1, 2, 3 Library Assistant OJD currently has 1,130 employees in this category of work. There are 1,007 females, 177 people of color, and 13 persons with disabilities. The chart on the following page recommends specific goals.

14

Unless specifically mentioned below, circuit court workforces met or exceeded county labor force availability in the Administrative Support category. The following units should establish targets for people of color and persons with disabilities:

Administrative Support Category

Court/Division Number of People

of Color Underutilized

Number of Persons with Disabilities Underutilized*

OSCA/Appellate Courts 8 6

Benton -- 1

Clackamas 4 2

Clatsop -- 1

Coos -- 2

Crook -- 1

Curry -- 1

Deschutes -- 1

Douglas -- 3

Jackson -- 2

Josephine -- 1

Klamath 1 2

Lane -- 5

Lincoln -- 2

Linn -- 1

Marion -- 5

Multnomah -- 11

Polk -- 1

Umatilla -- 2

Union -- 1

Wasco 1 --

Washington -- 3

Yamhill -- 1

*Note: This update of the AA Report reflects a decrease in underutilization of persons with disabilities. (This is the “numerator” of availability). The availability data imported from the “2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates” this reporting period provided an update from 2004 Oregon Employment Department data. (This is the “denominator” of availability.) Some portion of the difference between the 2013 and 2015 reports for the disabled workforce may be related to the change in data source as well as implementation of the 2010 U.S. Census data.

15

EEO Category: Service and Maintenance Workers

Service and maintenance workers provide a wide variety of services which do not produce a good or provide transportation. Classifications include:

Custodian Facilities Services Coordinator

OJD currently has one employee in this category of work. There are no females, people of color, or persons with disabilities in this category. The county labor force availability for this group indicates that no goals should be established in this category.

VIII. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT NEW AND ONGOING INITIATIVES

OJD is working to develop and implement initiatives, as budget allows, which attract and recognize diversity in the work place and provide better customer service.

Some of the initiatives include:

Language Initiatives

Providing testing and a pay differential for eligible department employees who possess bilingual skills. (This has been ongoing since 2000.)

Training

Providing a separate, comprehensive recruitment and selection training module to supervisors and lead workers with a component on affirmative action and diversity. (This has been ongoing since 2004.)

OJD Job Announcements

Providing links to all department job announcements postings on popular web sites as well as the department’s internet and intranet web pages. (Ongoing)

Posting all department job announcements on the state of Oregon jobs page. (Ongoing)

Posting announcements of professional-level positions on the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) web page and other related sites. (This has been ongoing since 2002.)

16

OJD Recruitment

Implementing a new recruitment software system (NEOGOV™) purchased by the executive branch for use in all three branches. This allows applicants to apply for OJD jobs online and to follow the recruitment process, and also allows hiring managers to expedite the recruitment process by up to 30%. (This occurred in January 2010.)

OJD EEO Census

Updating the census form regarding race/ethnicity and disability status in the new employee packet information to reflect the additional racial/ethnic categories. (This occurred in May 2008.)

School-to-Work

Participating in mock interviews of high school students to provide feedback on their interviewing skills, résumés, and appearance. (This has been ongoing since 2001.)

Job Fairs and Employee Development

Creating developmental and rotational job opportunities and job shadowing for those employees interested in furthering their career with OJD. (This has been ongoing since 2004.)

Developing opportunities for underfilling positions for those employees who do not meet the minimum qualifications and where recruitment for qualified individuals is difficult. (This has been ongoing since 2002.)

Providing a centrally coordinated mentorship program for new trial court administrators and division directors. (This has been ongoing since 2002.)

Including in all personnel-related training programs (for employees and judges) relevant information on affirmative action and discrimination. (Ongoing)

Attending selected job fairs throughout the state to conduct outreach and promote the work of OJD. (This has been ongoing since 2006.)

17

Other Initiatives

Posting the Affirmative Action Report, personnel rules/policies, and other personnel-related information to the department’s intranet web page for all employees to access. (This has been ongoing since 2001.)

Posting the Equal Employment Opportunity Plan (EEOP) to the department’s intranet web page for all employees to access. (This has been ongoing since 2006.)

Incorporating the Affirmative Action Report into the existing EEO module of supervisory training. (Ongoing)

Ensuring OJD statewide committees and boards represent the diversity of the workforce. (Ongoing)

Maintaining recruitment software (NEOGOV™) which tracks applicant data for analysis to determine recruitment and outreach strategies. (This was implemented January 2010.)

IX. 2015-17 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION GOALS AND STRATEGIES

The department has maintained parity for representation of women in the Officials and Administrators, Professionals, Administrative Support, and Service and Maintenance job categories. Improvement is needed to achieve parity for representation of women in the Technicians job category. Parity for representation of people of color was reached in the Officials and Administrators job category and maintained in the Service and Maintenance job category. OJD continues to work to achieve parity for people of color in the Professionals, Technicians, and Administrative Support job categories. Although parity was maintained for representation of persons with disabilities in the Service and Maintenance job category, more effort and emphasis is needed to recruit for persons with disabilities in the remaining job categories.

In the 2015-2017 biennium, OJD will continue to pursue the following goals and strategies:

1. Recruit open competitively; use diverse interview panels where possible.

2. Prioritize efforts to recruit people of color, women, and persons with disabilities to reflect an improved representation in all job categories.

18

3. Maintain gains during the 2013-2015 biennium and continue to strive to reach parity in all categories.

4. Participate annually in career fairs and other outreach events targeting women, people of color, and persons with disabilities (as budget allows).

5. Provide developmental and rotational job opportunities for current employees to enhance their careers.

6. Promote efforts to utilize underfill recruitments and establish career ladders for current employees.

7. Capture applicant data for analysis to determine or improve recruitment and outreach strategies.

8. Encourage participation in programs to reach out to students interested in a career in the judicial branch of state government.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REPORT

APPENDIX

Oregon Judicial Department Work Force Analysis by EEO Category (Depicting employees choosing multi-racial/ethnic as primary designation)

EEO Category Total Emp. Males % Females %

People of Color %

Two or More Races1 % Disabled %

Officials/Administrators 57 19 33.3% 38 66.7% 6 10.5% 3 5.3% 1 1.8%

Professionals 364 148 40.7% 216 59.3% 44 12.1% 11 3.0% 9 2.5%

Technicians 38 28 73.7% 10 26.3% 3 7.9% 0 0.0% 1 2.6%

Administrative Support 1130 123 10.9% 1007 89.1% 177 15.7% 38 3.4% 13 1.2%

Service/Maintenance 1 1 100% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Totals 1590 319 20.1% 1271 79.9% 230 14.5% 52 3.3% 24 1.5%

Information reflects a snapshot of the work force as of 9/30/14 and does not include EEO parity goals.

1"Two or More Races" category was added to give employees a choice beyond the state‐recognized racial/ethnic categories. Those who chose this category were also asked to designate, for record keeping purposes, one of the five state‐recognized categories.

19

19

Oregon Judicial Department Utilization Analysis by Gender, Race, and Disability Statewide Summary EEO Category: All

Underutilization

2015 Female People of Color Disabled1

Total Employees

People of Color

FTE FTE FTE

EEO Category Males Females Disabled1 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 Officials/ Administrators 57 19 38 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 2 2 3 2

Professionals 364 148 216 44 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 24 21 20 22 15

Technicians 38 28 10 3 1 8 8 8 8 9 1 2 2 1 2 4 3 3 2 1

Administrative Support 1130 123 1007 177 13 0 0 0 0 0 12 10 7 5 14 82 77 77 67 55

Service/ Maintenance 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Totals 1590 319 1271 230 24 8 8 8 8 9 17 12 9 8 21 114 103 102 94 73

1Based upon voluntary self-identification via employee survey. In 2014, the data source for this category was changed. Some portion of the decrease in underutilization may be related to the data source change and 2010 U.S. Census data.

20

20

Oregon Judicial Department

Utilization Analysis by Gender, Race, and Disability

Location: Statewide

EEO Category: Officials and Administrators

Gender/Race Number of

Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males

WhiteHispanicBlack or AfricanAmericanAsianNative-Hawaiian or Other Pacific IslanderAmerican-Indian or Alaskan NativeTwo or More Races

Females


Total Males of Color

Total Females of Color

Total Employees of Color

Total Employees

Total Disabled Employee

19 57.9% 33.3% 24.6%

17 51.4% 29.8% 21.6%

0 2.6% 0.0% 2.6%

0 0.7% 0.0% 0.7%

0 2.0% 0.0% 2.0%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

0 0.4% 0.0% 0.4%

2 0.8% 3.5% 0.0%

2 6.6% 3.5% 3.1%

38 42.1% 66.7% 0.0%

34 37.0% 59.6% 0.0%

1 1.8% 1.8% 0.0%

0 0.6% 0.0% 0.6%

1 1.4% 1.8% 0.0%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

1 0.3% 1.8% 0.0%

1 0.7% 1.8% 0.0%

4 4.9% 7.0% 0.0%

6 11.5% 10.5% 1.0%

1 6.7% 1.8% 4.9%

57

14

12

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

Geographic Data Source: Oregon

Occupational Category: Officials and Managers

Data Import Date 10/1/2014

21



Location: Statewide

EEO Category: Professionals


Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


148 46.5% 40.7% 5.8%

131 39.6% 36.0% 3.6%

6 1.7% 1.6% 0.1%

2 0.7% 0.5% 0.2%

3 3.3% 0.8% 2.5%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

1 0.2% 0.3% 0.0%

5 0.7% 1.4% 0.0%

17 6.7% 4.7% 2.0%

216 53.5% 59.3% 0.0%

189 46.5% 51.9% 0.0%

9 2.3% 2.5% 0.0%

2 0.6% 0.5% 0.1%

4 2.7% 1.1% 1.6%

3 0.1% 0.8% 0.0%

3 0.3% 0.8% 0.0%

6 0.8% 1.6% 0.0%

27 6.8% 7.4% 0.0%

44 13.5% 12.1% 1.4%

9 6.7% 2.5% 4.2%

364

21

13

0

0

9

0

0

0

7

0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0

0

5

15


Occupational Category: Professionals


22



Location: Statewide

EEO Category: Technicians


Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


28 49.5% 73.7% 0.0%

26 42.7% 68.4% 0.0%

2 2.3% 5.3% 0.0%

0 0.7% 0.0% 0.7%

0 2.4% 0.0% 2.4%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.5% 0.0% 0.5%

0 0.9% 0.0% 0.9%

2 6.8% 5.3% 1.5%

10 50.5% 26.3% 24.2%

9 43.3% 23.7% 19.6%

0 2.2% 0.0% 2.2%

0 0.5% 0.0% 0.5%

1 2.5% 2.6% 0.0%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

0 0.6% 0.0% 0.6%

0 1.1% 0.0% 1.1%

1 7.0% 2.6% 4.4%

3 13.8% 7.9% 5.9%

1 6.7% 2.6% 4.1%

38

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

9

7

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

2

1


Occupational Category: Technicians


23



Location: Statewide

EEO Category: Service and Maintenance Workers


Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


1 37.0% 100.0% 0.0%

1 28.9% 100.0% 0.0%

0 5.5% 0.0% 5.5%

0 0.4% 0.0% 0.4%

0 0.8% 0.0% 0.8%

0 0.6% 0.0% 0.6%

0 1.1% 0.0% 1.1%

0 0.6% 0.0% 0.6%

0 9.0% 0.0% 9.0%

0 63.1% 0.0% 63.1%

0 48.3% 0.0% 48.3%

0 10.0% 0.0% 10.0%

0 0.3% 0.0% 0.3%

0 1.2% 0.0% 1.2%

0 0.3% 0.0% 0.3%

0 1.6% 0.0% 1.6%

0 1.2% 0.0% 1.2%

0 14.6% 0.0% 14.6%

0 23.6% 0.0% 23.6%

0 8.1% 0.0% 8.1%

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Geographic Data Source: Salem PMSA

Occupational Category: Service Maintenance


24


County Summary for EEO Category: Administrative Support

Location TotalEmployees

Total Females

% FTE Total People of Color

% FTE Total Disabled

% FTE

Underutilized Underutilized Underutilized

Baker 5 5 0.0% 0 1 0.0% 0 0 8.1% 0

Benton 21 20 0.0% 0 3 0.0% 0 0 5.1% 1

Clackamas 78 65 0.0% 0 8 6.3% 4 2 3.1% 2

Clatsop 19 18 0.0% 0 0 2.9% 0 0 9.9% 1

Columbia 15 15 0.0% 0 1 0.9% 0 1 0.5% 0

Coos 24 24 0.0% 0 3 0.0% 0 0 10.2% 2

Crook 10 10 0.0% 0 0 7.8% 0 0 12.7% 1

Curry 9 9 0.0% 0 2 0.0% 0 0 12.9% 1

Deschutes 45 41 0.0% 0 4 0.8% 0 2 2.4% 1

Douglas 34 32 0.0% 0 3 0.0% 0 0 10.8% 3

Gilliam** 1 1 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 13.7% 0

Grant 5 5 0.0% 0 0 3.7% 0 0 10.7% 0

Harney 4 4 0.0% 0 0 7.1% 0 0 8.1% 0

Hood River 7 7 0.0% 0 1 5.9% 0 0 5.2% 0

Jackson 61 57 0.0% 0 7 0.0% 0 2 3.6% 2

Jefferson 9 9 0.0% 0 3 0.0% 0 1 0.0% 0

Josephine 32 30 0.0% 0 3 0.0% 0 1 3.4% 1

Klamath 28 28 0.0% 0 2 6.4% 1 0 8.9% 2

Lake 5 4 6.7% 0 1 0.0% 0 0 8.8% 0

Lane 77 70 0.0% 0 10 0.0% 0 0 7.2% 5

Lincoln 22 20 0.0% 0 3 0.0% 0 0 9.9% 2

Linn 31 30 0.0% 0 2 0.0% 0 1 4.3% 1

Malheur 10 10 0.0% 0 2 3.1% 0 0 8.6% 0

Marion 83 68 0.0% 0 21 0.0% 0 1 6.6% 5

Morrow 3 3 0.0% 0 0 24.8% 0 0 7.7% 0

25

Ray

Typewritten Text

Ray

Typewritten Text

Ray

Typewritten Text

Ray

Typewritten Text

Ray

Typewritten Text

Location TotalEmployees

Total Females

% FTE Total People of Color

% FTE Total Disabled

% FTE

Underutilized Underutilized Underutilized

Multnomah 216 176 0.0% 0 62 0.0% 0 1 5.2% 11

OSCA-Appellate

84 67 0.0% 0 8 9.6% 8 0 7.8% 6

Polk 17 13 0.0% 0 4 0.0% 0 0 7.8% 1

Sherman 1 1 0.0% 0 0 3.5% 0 0 9.0% 0

Tillamook 7 7 0.0% 0 0 7.0% 0 0 7.1% 0

Umatilla 27 26 0.0% 0 4 3.5% 0 0 7.8% 2

Union 14 14 0.0% 0 0 5.0% 0 0 7.4% 1

Wallowa 3 3 0.0% 0 0 1.1% 0 0 10.7% 0

Wasco 10 10 0.0% 0 0 12.9% 1 0 6.6% 0

Washington 87 79 0.0% 0 16 0.0% 0 1 4.6% 3

Yamhill 26 26 0.0% 0 3 0.3% 0 0 6.9% 1

1130Totals 1007 177 130 14 55* * *

* % calculation by county only


26

Ray

Typewritten Text

Ray

Typewritten Text

Ray

Typewritten Text

Ray

Typewritten Text

** Gilliam-Wheeler - one employee works in both locations.



Location: Baker

EEO Category: Administrative Support


Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


0 20.2% 0.0% 20.2%

0 16.1% 0.0% 16.1%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 4.1% 0.0% 4.1%

0 4.1% 0.0% 4.1%

5 79.4% 100.0% 0.0%

4 78.8% 80.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1 0.9% 20.0% 0.0%

1 0.9% 20.0% 0.0%

1 5.0% 20.0% 0.0%

0 8.1% 0.0% 8.1%

5

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Geographic Data Source: Baker

Occupational Category: Administrative Support


27



Location: Benton



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


1 26.0% 4.8% 21.2%

1 22.5% 4.8% 17.7%

0 1.2% 0.0% 1.2%

0 0.8% 0.0% 0.8%

0 0.8% 0.0% 0.8%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.6% 0.0% 0.6%

0 3.4% 0.0% 3.4%

20 74.0% 95.2% 0.0%

17 63.7% 81.0% 0.0%

1 5.0% 4.8% 0.2%

1 1.0% 4.8% 0.0%

0 2.4% 0.0% 2.4%

0 0.7% 0.0% 0.7%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1 0.7% 4.8% 0.0%

3 9.8% 14.3% 0.0%

3 13.2% 14.3% 0.0%

0 5.1% 0.0% 5.1%

21

4

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Geographic Data Source: Benton



28



Location: Clackamas



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


13 26.2% 16.7% 9.5%

12 20.7% 15.4% 5.3%

1 2.3% 1.3% 1.0%

0 0.9% 0.0% 0.9%

0 1.4% 0.0% 1.4%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

0 0.4% 0.0% 0.4%

1 5.3% 1.3% 4.0%

65 73.8% 83.3% 0.0%

58 62.1% 74.4% 0.0%

1 4.4% 1.3% 3.1%

0 1.5% 0.0% 1.5%

0 3.2% 0.0% 3.2%

1 0.3% 1.3% 0.0%

2 0.5% 2.6% 0.0%

3 1.4% 3.8% 0.0%

7 11.3% 9.0% 2.3%

8 16.6% 10.3% 6.3%

2 5.7% 2.6% 3.1%

78

7

4

0

0

1

0

0

0

3

0

0

2

1

2

0

0

0

1

4

2

Geographic Data Source: Portland-Vancouver PMSA



29



Location: Clatsop



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


1 19.1% 5.3% 13.8%

1 19.1% 5.3% 13.8%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

18 80.9% 94.7% 0.0%

18 76.8% 94.7% 0.0%

0 1.7% 0.0% 1.7%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

0 0.9% 0.0% 0.9%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

0 2.9% 0.0% 2.9%

0 2.9% 0.0% 2.9%

0 9.9% 0.0% 9.9%

19

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Geographic Data Source: Clatsop



30



Location: Columbia



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


0 17.0% 0.0% 17.0%

0 15.2% 0.0% 15.2%

0 0.6% 0.0% 0.6%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 1.1% 0.0% 1.1%

0 1.8% 0.0% 1.8%

15 81.5% 100.0% 0.0%

14 75.5% 93.3% 0.0%

0 2.6% 0.0% 2.6%

0 0.9% 0.0% 0.9%

0 1.3% 0.0% 1.3%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

1 0.9% 6.7% 0.0%

1 5.8% 6.7% 0.0%

1 7.6% 6.7% 0.9%

1 7.2% 6.7% 0.5%

15

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Geographic Data Source: Columbia



31



Location: Coos



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


0 16.9% 0.0% 16.9%

0 14.1% 0.0% 14.1%

0 2.1% 0.0% 2.1%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.4% 0.0% 0.4%

0 0.3% 0.0% 0.3%

0 2.8% 0.0% 2.8%

24 83.1% 100.0% 0.0%

21 74.6% 87.5% 0.0%

1 3.9% 4.2% 0.0%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

1 0.2% 4.2% 0.0%

0 0.3% 0.0% 0.3%

1 2.8% 4.2% 0.0%

0 0.5% 0.0% 0.5%

3 7.9% 12.5% 0.0%

3 10.7% 12.5% 0.0%

0 10.2% 0.0% 10.2%

24

4

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

Geographic Data Source: Coos



32



Location: Crook



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


0 22.3% 0.0% 22.3%

0 16.4% 0.0% 16.4%

0 3.5% 0.0% 3.5%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.6% 0.0% 0.6%

0 1.9% 0.0% 1.9%

0 6.0% 0.0% 6.0%

10 77.4% 100.0% 0.0%

10 74.5% 100.0% 0.0%

0 0.6% 0.0% 0.6%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.3% 0.0% 0.3%

0 0.6% 0.0% 0.6%

0 0.3% 0.0% 0.3%

0 1.8% 0.0% 1.8%

0 7.8% 0.0% 7.8%

0 12.7% 0.0% 12.7%

10

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Geographic Data Source: Crook



33



Location: Curry



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


0 17.5% 0.0% 17.5%

0 13.5% 0.0% 13.5%

0 1.3% 0.0% 1.3%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 1.3% 0.0% 1.3%

9 82.2% 100.0% 0.0%

7 69.6% 77.8% 0.0%

0 6.6% 0.0% 6.6%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1 5.0% 11.1% 0.0%

1 0.0% 11.1% 0.0%

2 11.6% 22.2% 0.0%

2 12.9% 22.2% 0.0%

0 12.9% 0.0% 12.9%

9

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Geographic Data Source: Curry



34



Location: Deschutes



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


4 21.0% 8.9% 12.1%

3 18.8% 6.7% 12.1%

0 0.8% 0.0% 0.8%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

1 0.5% 2.2% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 1.1% 0.0% 1.1%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

1 2.8% 2.2% 0.6%

41 79.1% 91.1% 0.0%

38 71.6% 84.4% 0.0%

0 3.7% 0.0% 3.7%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.8% 0.0% 0.8%

1 0.0% 2.2% 0.0%

0 1.1% 0.0% 1.1%

2 1.3% 4.4% 0.0%

3 6.9% 6.7% 0.2%

4 9.7% 8.9% 0.8%

2 6.8% 4.4% 2.4%

45

5

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Geographic Data Source: Deschutes



35



Location: Douglas



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


2 18.4% 5.9% 12.5%

2 16.2% 5.9% 10.3%

0 1.1% 0.0% 1.1%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.7% 0.0% 0.7%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

0 2.2% 0.0% 2.2%

32 81.6% 94.1% 0.0%

29 75.4% 85.3% 0.0%

2 1.8% 5.9% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.6% 0.0% 0.6%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

1 0.8% 2.9% 0.0%

0 2.6% 0.0% 2.6%

3 5.9% 8.8% 0.0%

3 8.1% 8.8% 0.0%

0 10.8% 0.0% 10.8%

34

4

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

Geographic Data Source: Douglas



36



Location: Gilliam/Wheeler*



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


0 19.2% 0.0% 19.2%

0 19.2% 0.0% 19.2%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1 76.9% 100.0% 0.0%

1 76.9% 100.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 13.7% 0.0% 13.7%

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Geographic Data Source: Gilliam



37

Ray

Typewritten Text

*One employee works at the Gilliam and Wheeler locations.

Ray

Typewritten Text

Ray

Typewritten Text

Ray

Typewritten Text

Ray

Typewritten Text

Ray

Typewritten Text



Location: Grant



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


0 23.8% 0.0% 23.8%

0 22.9% 0.0% 22.9%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.8% 0.0% 0.8%

0 0.8% 0.0% 0.8%

5 76.2% 100.0% 0.0%

5 72.4% 100.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 2.9% 0.0% 2.9%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 2.9% 0.0% 2.9%

0 3.7% 0.0% 3.7%

0 10.7% 0.0% 10.7%

5

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Geographic Data Source: Grant



38



Location: Harney



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


0 17.0% 0.0% 17.0%

0 17.0% 0.0% 17.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.9% 0.0% 0.9%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.9% 0.0% 0.9%

4 83.0% 100.0% 0.0%

4 76.6% 100.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 2.1% 0.0% 2.1%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.9% 0.0% 0.9%

0 3.2% 0.0% 3.2%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 6.2% 0.0% 6.2%

0 7.1% 0.0% 7.1%

0 8.1% 0.0% 8.1%

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Geographic Data Source: Harney



39



Location: Hood River



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


0 19.4% 0.0% 19.4%

0 14.2% 0.0% 14.2%

0 4.2% 0.0% 4.2%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.9% 0.0% 0.9%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 5.1% 0.0% 5.1%

7 80.9% 100.0% 0.0%

6 65.5% 85.7% 0.0%

1 11.5% 14.3% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.9% 0.0% 0.9%

0 0.6% 0.0% 0.6%

0 2.1% 0.0% 2.1%

1 15.1% 14.3% 0.8%

1 20.2% 14.3% 5.9%

0 5.2% 0.0% 5.2%

7

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Geographic Data Source: Hood River



40



Location: Jackson



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


4 21.2% 6.6% 14.6%

3 18.4% 4.9% 13.5%

0 1.3% 0.0% 1.3%

0 0.5% 0.0% 0.5%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

1 0.0% 1.6% 0.0%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

0 0.4% 0.0% 0.4%

1 2.6% 1.6% 1.0%

57 78.8% 93.4% 0.0%

51 71.0% 83.6% 0.0%

3 5.3% 4.9% 0.4%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1 0.1% 1.6% 0.0%

1 0.1% 1.6% 0.0%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

1 1.9% 1.6% 0.3%

6 7.5% 9.8% 0.0%

7 10.1% 11.5% 0.0%

2 6.9% 3.3% 3.6%

61

8

8

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

Geographic Data Source: Medford-Ashland MSA



41



Location: Jefferson



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


0 26.9% 0.0% 26.9%

0 17.8% 0.0% 17.8%

0 4.7% 0.0% 4.7%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.9% 0.0% 0.9%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 5.6% 0.0% 5.6%

9 72.8% 100.0% 0.0%

6 55.9% 66.7% 0.0%

2 6.9% 22.2% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.6% 0.0% 0.6%

0 9.4% 0.0% 9.4%

1 0.0% 11.1% 0.0%

3 16.9% 33.3% 0.0%

3 22.5% 33.3% 0.0%

1 9.4% 11.1% 0.0%

9

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Geographic Data Source: Jefferson



42



Location: Josephine



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


2 21.2% 6.3% 15.0%

1 20.1% 3.1% 17.0%

1 0.8% 3.1% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.3% 0.0% 0.3%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

1 1.3% 3.1% 0.0%

30 78.8% 93.8% 0.0%

28 74.8% 87.5% 0.0%

1 2.9% 3.1% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1 1.1% 3.1% 0.0%

2 4.0% 6.3% 0.0%

3 5.3% 9.4% 0.0%

1 6.5% 3.1% 3.4%

32

4

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Geographic Data Source: Josephine



43



Location: Klamath



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


0 19.0% 0.0% 19.0%

0 14.5% 0.0% 14.5%

0 2.3% 0.0% 2.3%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.3% 0.0% 0.3%

0 0.5% 0.0% 0.5%

0 1.3% 0.0% 1.3%

0 4.4% 0.0% 4.4%

28 81.0% 100.0% 0.0%

26 71.8% 92.9% 0.0%

1 5.4% 3.6% 1.8%

0 0.6% 0.0% 0.6%

0 0.8% 0.0% 0.8%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

1 2.0% 3.6% 0.0%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

2 9.1% 7.1% 2.0%

2 13.5% 7.1% 6.4%

0 8.9% 0.0% 8.9%

28

5

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

2

Geographic Data Source: Klamath



44



Location: Lake



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


1 13.3% 20.0% 0.0%

1 8.8% 20.0% 0.0%

0 3.4% 0.0% 3.4%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.7% 0.0% 0.7%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 4.1% 0.0% 4.1%

4 86.7% 80.0% 6.7%

3 73.5% 60.0% 13.5%

1 5.1% 20.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 3.5% 0.0% 3.5%

0 2.7% 0.0% 2.7%

0 0.7% 0.0% 0.7%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1 12.0% 20.0% 0.0%

1 16.1% 20.0% 0.0%

0 8.8% 0.0% 8.8%

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Geographic Data Source: Lake



45



Location: Lane



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


7 23.7% 9.1% 14.6%

6 20.8% 7.8% 13.0%

0 1.0% 0.0% 1.0%

0 0.4% 0.0% 0.4%

0 0.6% 0.0% 0.6%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

1 0.6% 1.3% 0.0%

1 2.9% 1.3% 1.6%

70 76.3% 90.9% 0.0%

61 67.8% 79.2% 0.0%

5 3.1% 6.5% 0.0%

2 0.3% 2.6% 0.0%

1 1.4% 1.3% 0.1%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

0 0.8% 0.0% 0.8%

1 2.2% 1.3% 0.9%

9 7.9% 11.7% 0.0%

10 10.8% 13.0% 0.0%

0 7.2% 0.0% 7.2%

77

11

10

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

Geographic Data Source: Eugene-Springfield MSA



46



Location: Lincoln



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


2 16.2% 9.1% 7.1%

1 13.5% 4.5% 9.0%

0 0.5% 0.0% 0.5%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1 2.0% 4.5% 0.0%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

1 2.6% 4.5% 0.0%

20 83.8% 90.9% 0.0%

18 74.4% 81.8% 0.0%

0 3.4% 0.0% 3.4%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.7% 0.0% 0.7%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

1 4.2% 4.5% 0.0%

1 0.7% 4.5% 0.0%

2 9.0% 9.1% 0.0%

3 11.6% 13.6% 0.0%

0 9.9% 0.0% 9.9%

22

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

Geographic Data Source: Lincoln



47



Location: Linn



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


1 20.8% 3.2% 17.6%

1 18.4% 3.2% 15.2%

0 1.2% 0.0% 1.2%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.7% 0.0% 0.7%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

0 2.3% 0.0% 2.3%

30 79.2% 96.8% 0.0%

28 75.0% 90.3% 0.0%

1 1.5% 3.2% 0.0%

0 0.7% 0.0% 0.7%

0 0.6% 0.0% 0.6%

1 0.0% 3.2% 0.0%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

0 1.1% 0.0% 1.1%

2 4.1% 6.5% 0.0%

2 6.4% 6.5% 0.0%

1 7.5% 3.2% 4.3%

31

5

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Geographic Data Source: Linn



48



Location: Malheur



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


0 18.8% 0.0% 18.8%

0 13.4% 0.0% 13.4%

0 5.4% 0.0% 5.4%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

0 5.6% 0.0% 5.6%

10 81.2% 100.0% 0.0%

8 63.8% 80.0% 0.0%

2 16.6% 20.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.5% 0.0% 0.5%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

2 17.5% 20.0% 0.0%

2 23.1% 20.0% 3.1%

0 8.6% 0.0% 8.6%

10

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Geographic Data Source: Malheur



49



Location: Marion



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


15 23.7% 18.1% 5.6%

9 17.0% 10.8% 6.2%

5 4.5% 6.0% 0.0%

0 0.4% 0.0% 0.4%

0 0.7% 0.0% 0.7%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

1 0.3% 1.2% 0.0%

6 6.2% 7.2% 0.0%

68 76.2% 81.9% 0.0%

53 63.1% 63.9% 0.0%

10 8.3% 12.0% 0.0%

1 0.4% 1.2% 0.0%

0 1.4% 0.0% 1.4%

0 0.3% 0.0% 0.3%

2 1.0% 2.4% 0.0%

2 1.5% 2.4% 0.0%

15 12.9% 18.1% 0.0%

21 19.1% 25.3% 0.0%

1 7.8% 1.2% 6.6%

83

4

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

5




50



Location: Morrow



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


0 11.2% 0.0% 11.2%

0 5.2% 0.0% 5.2%

0 6.0% 0.0% 6.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 6.0% 0.0% 6.0%

3 88.8% 100.0% 0.0%

3 70.7% 100.0% 0.0%

0 17.1% 0.0% 17.1%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 1.7% 0.0% 1.7%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 18.8% 0.0% 18.8%

0 24.8% 0.0% 24.8%

0 7.7% 0.0% 7.7%

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Geographic Data Source: Morrow



51



Location: Multnomah



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


40 26.2% 18.5% 7.7%

30 20.7% 13.9% 6.8%

4 2.3% 1.9% 0.4%

2 0.9% 0.9% 0.0%

2 1.4% 0.9% 0.5%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

2 0.4% 0.9% 0.0%

10 5.3% 4.6% 0.7%

176 73.8% 81.5% 0.0%

124 62.1% 57.4% 4.7%

12 4.4% 5.6% 0.0%

9 1.5% 4.2% 0.0%

16 3.2% 7.4% 0.0%

1 0.3% 0.5% 0.0%

1 0.5% 0.5% 0.0%

13 1.4% 6.0% 0.0%

52 11.3% 24.1% 0.0%

62 16.6% 28.7% 0.0%

1 5.7% 0.5% 5.2%

216

16

14

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

10

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

11




52



Location: OSCA-Appellate



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


17 23.7% 20.2% 3.5%

15 17.0% 17.9% 0.0%

1 4.5% 1.2% 3.3%

1 0.4% 1.2% 0.0%

0 0.7% 0.0% 0.7%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

0 0.3% 0.0% 0.3%

2 6.2% 2.4% 3.8%

67 76.2% 79.8% 0.0%

61 63.1% 72.6% 0.0%

4 8.3% 4.8% 3.5%

1 0.4% 1.2% 0.0%

0 1.4% 0.0% 1.4%

0 0.3% 0.0% 0.3%

1 1.0% 1.2% 0.0%

0 1.5% 0.0% 1.5%

6 12.9% 7.1% 5.8%

8 19.1% 9.5% 9.6%

0 7.8% 0.0% 7.8%

84

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

2

0

1

0

0

1

4

8

6




53



Location: Polk



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


4 23.7% 23.5% 0.2%

3 17.0% 17.6% 0.0%

1 4.5% 5.9% 0.0%

0 0.4% 0.0% 0.4%

0 0.7% 0.0% 0.7%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

0 0.3% 0.0% 0.3%

1 6.2% 5.9% 0.3%

13 76.2% 76.5% 0.0%

10 63.1% 58.8% 4.3%

3 8.3% 17.6% 0.0%

0 0.4% 0.0% 0.4%

0 1.4% 0.0% 1.4%

0 0.3% 0.0% 0.3%

0 1.0% 0.0% 1.0%

0 1.5% 0.0% 1.5%

3 12.9% 17.6% 0.0%

4 19.1% 23.5% 0.0%

0 7.8% 0.0% 7.8%

17

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1




54



Location: Sherman



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


0 13.0% 0.0% 13.0%

0 8.7% 0.0% 8.7%

0 3.5% 0.0% 3.5%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 3.5% 0.0% 3.5%

1 87.0% 100.0% 0.0%

1 87.0% 100.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 3.5% 0.0% 3.5%

0 9.0% 0.0% 9.0%

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Geographic Data Source: Sherman



55



Location: Tillamook



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


0 12.4% 0.0% 12.4%

0 10.2% 0.0% 10.2%

0 0.9% 0.0% 0.9%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 1.2% 0.0% 1.2%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 2.1% 0.0% 2.1%

7 87.6% 100.0% 0.0%

7 82.7% 100.0% 0.0%

0 2.2% 0.0% 2.2%

0 1.5% 0.0% 1.5%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 1.2% 0.0% 1.2%

0 4.9% 0.0% 4.9%

0 7.0% 0.0% 7.0%

0 7.1% 0.0% 7.1%

7

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Geographic Data Source: Tillamook



56



Location: Umatilla



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


1 18.1% 3.7% 14.4%

1 13.3% 3.7% 9.6%

0 3.7% 0.0% 3.7%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

0 0.3% 0.0% 0.3%

0 0.5% 0.0% 0.5%

0 4.8% 0.0% 4.8%

26 81.9% 96.3% 0.0%

22 68.2% 81.5% 0.0%

4 8.1% 14.8% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.5% 0.0% 0.5%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 3.6% 0.0% 3.6%

0 1.3% 0.0% 1.3%

4 13.5% 14.8% 0.0%

4 18.3% 14.8% 3.5%

0 7.8% 0.0% 7.8%

27

3

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

Geographic Data Source: Umatilla



57



Location: Union



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


0 15.3% 0.0% 15.3%

0 13.4% 0.0% 13.4%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.4% 0.0% 0.4%

0 0.6% 0.0% 0.6%

14 84.7% 100.0% 0.0%

14 80.4% 100.0% 0.0%

0 3.3% 0.0% 3.3%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

0 0.5% 0.0% 0.5%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

0 4.4% 0.0% 4.4%

0 5.0% 0.0% 5.0%

0 7.4% 0.0% 7.4%

14

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Geographic Data Source: Union



58



Location: Wallowa



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


0 15.8% 0.0% 15.8%

0 15.8% 0.0% 15.8%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

3 84.2% 100.0% 0.0%

3 84.2% 100.0% 0.0%

0 1.1% 0.0% 1.1%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 1.1% 0.0% 1.1%

0 1.1% 0.0% 1.1%

0 10.7% 0.0% 10.7%

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Geographic Data Source: Wallowa



59



Location: Wasco



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


0 24.1% 0.0% 24.1%

0 18.4% 0.0% 18.4%

0 2.1% 0.0% 2.1%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 1.1% 0.0% 1.1%

0 1.9% 0.0% 1.9%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 5.1% 0.0% 5.1%

10 75.7% 100.0% 0.0%

10 67.4% 100.0% 0.0%

0 3.5% 0.0% 3.5%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.8% 0.0% 0.8%

0 3.5% 0.0% 3.5%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 7.8% 0.0% 7.8%

0 12.9% 0.0% 12.9%

0 6.6% 0.0% 6.6%

10

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Geographic Data Source: Wasco



60



Location: Washington



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


8 26.2% 9.2% 17.0%

5 20.7% 5.7% 15.0%

1 2.3% 1.1% 1.2%

0 0.9% 0.0% 0.9%

0 1.4% 0.0% 1.4%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

2 0.4% 2.3% 0.0%

3 5.3% 3.4% 1.9%

79 73.8% 90.8% 0.0%

66 62.1% 75.9% 0.0%

7 4.4% 8.0% 0.0%

0 1.5% 0.0% 1.5%

3 3.2% 3.4% 0.0%

0 0.3% 0.0% 0.3%

0 0.5% 0.0% 0.5%

3 1.4% 3.4% 0.0%

13 11.3% 14.9% 0.0%

16 16.6% 18.4% 0.0%

1 5.7% 1.1% 4.6%

87

14

13

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

3




61



Location: Yamhill



Employees

Labor Force

Availability

Judicial

Department

Work Force

Underutilization

% FTE

Males


Females





Total Employees


0 22.1% 0.0% 22.1%

0 17.3% 0.0% 17.3%

0 3.0% 0.0% 3.0%

0 0.2% 0.0% 0.2%

0 0.4% 0.0% 0.4%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 1.2% 0.0% 1.2%

0 4.9% 0.0% 4.9%

26 77.9% 100.0% 0.0%

23 70.9% 88.5% 0.0%

3 4.0% 11.5% 0.0%

0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

0 0.6% 0.0% 0.6%

0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.4% 0.0% 0.4%

0 1.8% 0.0% 1.8%

3 6.9% 11.5% 0.0%

3 11.8% 11.5% 0.3%

0 6.9% 0.0% 6.9%

26

5

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Geographic Data Source: Yamhill



62

oregon judicial department - oregon state...

Documents